Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 6 Part 2

What does it mean to be in Christ? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Going with what Bates says, I will try to summarize his main points. I understand him to be saying that Christ is the elect one, especially since he piggybacks off of the work of Chadwick Thornhill, and insofar as we are in Christ, we are elect as well. The ancient world was much more group-oriented. You got your identity from the people that you were associated with. We are much more individualistic identity. You form who you are on your own.

So when are you an elect? When you are in Christ. Saying that a group is elect doesn’t mean that every individual in that group will keep those benefits. People can leave the group whenever they want and they will lose the benefits of being in the group. In the ancient world, if you got benefits from being a worshipper of a pagan deity and then you became a Christian and stopped worshipping that deity, you would lose the benefits that would come from being with that group.

Couldn’t it be both individual and group identity? Except, it isn’t. In the ancient world, they weren’t interested in asking about an individual and how they could know they were Christian. It was really easy to know. You had the benefits of being with the group and you were like your fellow compatriots in the Christian movement. If you were in the group and the group was Christian, you were Christian. Let’s make a syllogism of it.

All who are in the group are Christian.
John is in the group.
John is a Christian.

We also have writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that weren’t available to Trent or to the Protestant Reformers. What does Bates say about those?

The results? Historically based studies of election agree: out of some hundred possible examples, when it pertains to salvation, election is exclusively corporate in the New Testament and related noncanonical literature. Individual election is not a view Jews or early Christians can be demonstrated to have held regularly, if at all, during this era.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2690-2694). Kindle Edition.

Going with Thornhill, Bates says that overwhelmingly, salvation is spoken of in terms of the group. Someone could point to people in the Gospels who join the group and become Christians, but that’s the point. This isn’t about the individual so much as it is about the welcoming of the group. The statement is more of a whosoever will. Anyone in the Gospels can join the group.

Personally, I hope we return to thinking like this more since I hold that individualism is one of the worst things that has happened to our society and has led to much chaos. Our identities do not work when we try to forge them in ourselves. We work better when we find where we fit in the body of Christ. We are made for community.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 6 Part 1

Does regeneration precede faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Bates begins looking at the order of salvation about Calvinism. While Bates in my reading has not yet said he is an Arminian, it is clear he is not a Calvinist. He does not get into the metaphysical issues such as the relationship between God and time. For my purposes, I do take that God knows all events past, present, and future. Concerning free will, I contend that God is sovereign, man has free will, and everything else is a jump ball.

One important aspect Bates brings out is that election in the Bible for salvation is normally seen as community-oriented rather than individual. Let’s consider two passages. In Phil. 1:6, we are told that what God began in you, He will bring to completion. There you go! Eternal security in the text.

Except the you there is not an individual. Paul is not writing to one person. He’s writing to a group. In Southern parlance where I live, we would properly say “Y’all.” That does not mean that every single person who starts on the journey in the church will finish it. It means that what God began working in the church he will bring to completion.

And to be fair, consider in the next chapter where he says to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. There you go! A person has to work out their salvation. They are not eternally secure! Except once again, this is “Y’all.” The church is to work out their salvation.

He also points out that texts like Ephesians speak about Christ, not Jesus. Is there a difference?

“Christ” is not a personal name but rather an honorific title. 1 If we functionally reduce “Christ” in the decree to a personal name in order to locate salvation in an eternal person rather than in a messianic office that will eventually come to be filled by an eternal person who took on human flesh through a historical process, we are running against the grain of Scripture’s teaching on salvation. We cannot make the decree accurately refer in the exact messianic way Paul and Peter intend without drawing upon time-bound historical processes that occur later in the story. As we will see, the same is true for election more generally.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2594-2599). Kindle Edition.

But are there not places in the text that speak of individuals being elect? What about Moses and Pharaoh in Romans 9? What about Jacob and Esau? This is the calling of individuals isn’t it?

Two things and we will expand on these next time.

First, if there is one individual who is called for election it is Christ and we who are in Him are considered to be saved. Jesus is the true elect one. Second, when we see people showing up who are said to be chosen on an individual level, that refers to people who are chosen for a specific vocation and not for salvation.

That’s for next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 3

Is the plunge salvific? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Now Bates will look at some passages that are used for baptismal regeneration. He notes that 1 Peter 3:21 speaks about the pledge of a good conscience towards God. The pledge is what is salvific. It could be Peter is not saying the water doesn’t wash away sins, as if it could, but rather entering the water is a sign of loyalty to Jesus.

Bates also argues that whatever matters when it shows up is faith, i.e. pistis. It is the loyalty that we give to Jesus. While this would include baptism, it is not that baptism saves us. Undergoing baptism would be more an outward expression of our inward commitment to Jesus.

This also helps deal with some claims that are often struggled with both within Protestantism and Catholicism. I have heard Catholics speak of a baptism of desire, for example. This is a case where someone wants to get baptized, but for whatever reason, they cannot. In such a case, a person is considered saved. Cyprian in his time in the early church noted that some people were martyred before they could get baptized.

He also notes that while the Council of Trent is considered authoritative for Catholics, we do have access to documents the Council did not have. This is simply a matter of fact and is no way an attack on Catholicism. It just means that perhaps some things in Catholicism might need to be re-examined in light of such evidence. Two such documents he refers to are the apology of Justin Martyr and the Didache. (Also, the Reformers would not have access to these so some of their positions might have to be adjusted as well in light of new evidence.) We could consider a parallel with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Bates then quotes from the First Apology:

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water

I do not find this as convincing an argument as I do not see anything about them doing it to themselves as Bates says. I do agree with him that there is no mention of a priest in this. Bates says there is no evidence that priests existed at the time and at that, it would be the burden of the other side to demonstrate that they did.

After this, he takes a brief look at Tertullian. The topic under question this time for Bates seems to be infant baptism. Again, there is no indication that this was going on in the early church. If one wishes to say that the practice is biblical, then it will be their burden to make a case for it from the Scriptures.

A final statement is there can be a lot of concern about valid baptisms. Bates says we should relax because salvation is not constrained by baptismal methods, but it is based on allegiance to Jesus. We should expect nothing less today. My own thinking is God does not keep us out of eternity on a technicality.

If I would have added more to this, I would have liked a much more thorough look at Scriptural passages related to the topic of baptismal regeneration, such as Acts 2:38.

Next, Bates will take a look at Calvinism and doctrines of election and regeneration.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 2

How did Jews see baptism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Usually, I find when baptism is debated, it’s not normally discussed how the Jews saw it. After all, baptism predates Jesus. It even predates John the Baptist. He didn’t come up with some new idea. Bates says we have archaeological evidence from the second century B.C. onward.

The water was not meant to cleanse from sins so much as impurity. He gives the example of a woman who has her period. The flow of blood did not indicate that the woman had done anything sinful. However, it did indicate she was impure and thus, she needed to have her impurity taken care of lest she do damage to anything that would be holy.

We have plenty of evidence of baptism at the Qumran community and Bates says that in this community, repentance came first. After repentance, there was then the preparation of the water for baptism. If one had not repented, one could not be forgiven.

He also references Josephus who says something remarkably similar about baptism.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, [for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,] thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.

You can see it for yourself in Book XVIII, Chapter 5, section 2 of his work here.

So how does Bates sum this up?

Repentance was the true instrument of cleansing prior to baptism, not the baptism nor the water. This is precisely what we observed at Qumran. For Josephus, regarding John’s baptism, the tool that God used to cleanse the true essential person (the “soul”) was repentance and a righteous life prior to baptism.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 2081-2083). Kindle Edition.

I wish I had had this years earlier. I still would have got baptized, but it would have made the stress I was going through a lot easier.

We shall continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 5 Part 1

How do we start plunging into the topic of baptism? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

At the start of this chapter, Bates says that baptism was seen as effective for salvation but only on the basis of voluntary repentance and confessing loyalty to King Jesus. At the start, this is him expressing his opposition to infant baptism. Even those who advocate for infant baptism must confess that there is not a single example of it explicitly taking place in the New Testament.

But then it’s off to the real question. Do you have to be baptized to be saved? For my personal history on this topic, I was saved in a Baptist church, but I was not baptized immediately. In my case, I didn’t know anything about coming forward and sharing your decision. I did see people getting baptized and I know people rejoiced at seeing it, and I understand it, but I got frightened instead.

Because to this day, I have a strong fear of being in water.

Probably also got a bit more difficult when I had a steel rod placed on my spine about 2 months before turning 16. Really hard to bend after that.

I went to Bible College and I was a bit naive. I didn’t know as much as I thought I did and didn’t know much about denominational differences. My college turned out to be in the Churches of Christ movement that sees baptism as essential for salvation. Thus, I began my study on this topic.

I wish I had Bates’s book back then. He handles the topic so well.

Did I get baptized eventually? Yes. By immersion. I also went under what was the bare minimum. The minister knew about my steel rod and my fear of water.

My stance now is that baptism is not required for salvation, but if you are a Christian, you should get baptized anyway.

Bates in his book points out all the verses used, like 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 2:38, but starts his case against first by pointing out about people who we have no record of being baptized, including the apostles themselves. He also points out that Paul says that it is by professing that Jesus is Lord that one is saved in Romans 10:9. While this could have taken place at baptism, Paul says the profession is what is salvific.

I would have liked to have seen more interaction at this point on the idea that this was a creed said at baptism. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it wasn’t. It is something I have heard so I am sure Bates has heard it as well and it would behoove him to deal with something like that.

Also, when asked why Cornelius and his guests were baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit, Bates says “We don’t know.” This seems strange. Wouldn’t it be for the same reason anyone else is baptized today? That is to show publicly that one has made a declaration of loyalty to King Jesus.

Next time, we’ll look at the question more seeing how Jews saw baptism.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 5

What about Catholicism today? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In wrapping up his look, Bates says that he sees four problems in Catholicism today:

In my view, Catholic dogma wrongly suggests that the community of the justified (and any individuals therein) must be marked out by things other than Spirit-led allegiance to the king in at least four ways: penance, holy days, acceptance of the whole dogma, and baptism.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1780-1781). Kindle Edition.

Penance is the idea of something needing to be done beyond seeking forgiveness. Trent even says that one cannot receive forgiveness by faith alone. Penance must take place. About this, Bates says that:

Yet these dogmas about penance do not accord with Scripture or the teachings of the apostles. The Catholic bishops at Trent wrongly believed penance to be biblical because commands in the Bible to “repent” (Greek metanoeō) had been mistranslated in Latin as “do penance.” The Council of Trent’s “Decree on Justification” cites Matthew 3: 2, Acts 2: 38, and Revelation 2: 5 in support of “do penance,” but the original Greek, as opposed to the Latin Vulgate, actually says “repent” in these places. The meaning “do penance” is not possible for the Bible in the way Trent intends, since the system of penance and absolution by a priest was not in place until after the Donatist crisis in the third century. Jesus and the apostles lived in the first.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1796-1801). Kindle Edition.

And going further:

There is no evidence that Jesus or the apostles commanded penance or absolution by a human priest within the framework of the new covenant— especially since, apart from Jesus as the high priest, there is no evidence for human priests of the new covenant at all in the earliest Christianity represented by the New Testament writings.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1812-1814). Kindle Edition.

As for holy days, my understanding of Bates is that the problem is not the holy days themselves, but making their observing as mandatory.

To reinstate universally required holy days— as Catholicism does— is to reinstitute an old-order written-rule system, to turn back to the stoicheia. This plays into sin’s hand. Such rules create false walls in the one true church, and those who rely on those walls rather than or in addition to allegiance to the king compromise the one-justified-family benefit and result of the gospel. Only Spirit-based allegiance in the king allows the flesh to become obedient to the deepest intentions of the law of God.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1842-1846). Kindle Edition.

I do not need to expound on the others, but I want to give Bates’s final statement in full.

A close reading of Paul’s letters shows that personal justification is not part of the gospel, but rather is one of its leading benefits. Faith is not part of the gospel either. Saving faith is best understood as an allegiant response to the King Jesus gospel. Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith is purposed to show that there is one, and only one, righteous family and this family is the family that gives allegiance to King Jesus. I’m persuaded that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants are not equally and fully correct in their doctrinal determinations. I’ve sketched common Protestant problems and have also shown how the doctrine of justification in Galatians should pressure the Catholic Church toward specific reforms in dogma. Nevertheless, each is equally and fully Christian inasmuch as each upholds and responds with allegiance to the royal gospel. In our overall attempt to move beyond salvation wars of the past and present, in this book’s final chapters we will return to the question of how justification is presently modeled among Catholics and Protestants, and then we will seek to remodel it. But if our remodeling is to help

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1885-1893). Kindle Edition.

Next time, we’ll look at a position that some Protestants hold to. Is baptism saving? What role does Bates see as baptism holding?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 4

Does Bates have a better reading of Galatians? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Bates wants us to consider several different points about the reading of Galatians.

First off, when it comes to the gospel being compromised, it does not refer to the content, but to the results. He specifically cites Galatians 1:6-9. They likely did agree that Jesus is King. They did not agree in how one is supposed to live in light of Jesus being king.

Second, their main dispute was how one displays allegiance to Jesus. They included following the Law as necessary to show allegiance. Bates does not say in the book how he would view someone who is Messianic Jewish and chooses to live by the law, say in dietary restrictions, not because they think it salvific, but because of a sort of connection they experience with their tradition.

Third, the troublemakers were not arguing a works salvation per se. They were arguing a works of the law salvation. This is an important distinction since in the time of the Reformation, it would not be arguments about the Jewish Law, but about works in general.

Finally, this does not exclude good works. One should do good works, but that is not for the purpose of salvation, but they are done because the King commands them and they are the fruit of salvation. This is the epistle where Paul talks about the fruit of the Spirit after all.

Bates then applies this to Catholicism. One of the problems is that in Catholicism, an individual is not allowed to have private interpretation of Scripture.

As the Catholic Church’s most authoritative statement, Dei Verbum, puts it, “The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.”

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1723-1725). Kindle Edition.

Bates says about this:

This puts the individual who is trying to assess the truthfulness of Catholicism in an awkward place. From the Catholic vantage point, no individual can make Catholicism’s fidelity to Scripture or history a criterion when testing Catholicism’s truthfulness, since neither

that individual nor any other has the right to authoritatively interpret Scripture or tradition in order to determine whether Catholic doctrine is in fact true. For Catholics, private individuals— whether laypeople, priests, Catholic, non-Catholic, or professional scholars— have no right to decide what Scripture, tradition, or Catholic doctrine truly means.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1726-1731). Kindle Edition.

Bates’s problems with Catholicism are not that Catholics do not appreciate grace. He affirms that they do. All forgiveness is grace. It is not even the sacraments. One can fully hold to sacraments if they wish. The problem comes in the relationship the sacraments play to salvation.

A central Catholic error regarding salvation is the belief that the terms of true allegiance can be universally and officially mandated through a list of must-do and must-not-do commands via the sacraments for everyone.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1760-1762). Kindle Edition.

He then says that:

Sacraments in general can be celebrated as helpful for the Christian life when their performative terms are not made mandatory for salvation. The traditional Catholic position is that the sacraments are absolutely mandatory, but as noted above, Lumen gentium has undermined this position by affirming that other Christian communions are somehow really “joined with us in the Holy Spirit” (§ 15).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1767-1770). Kindle Edition.

Catholics do not fall under the anathema of Galatians. Bates still considers them fully in the Christian faith. I can say that I also love my Catholic brothers and sisters, seeing as I meet with a number of them on Thursday nights to discuss Aquinas via Zoom.

Next time, we’ll wrap up this chapter.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond The Salvation Wars: Chapter 4 Part 4

Are works necessary for salvation? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. So Bates is arguing that salvation comes from allegiance to Christ. Is this a works-based salvation? Do I have to live my life in service to Jesus in order for me to be saved?

My favorite analogy to use with this is a wedding. Imagine that a man meets a girl he really wants to marry. He spends many months wooing her and after a long time of dating, they decide to marry. He makes his vows at the altar as does she. After the wedding then, he drives back alone to his parents’ house, stays with them, and never sees his bride again and says “Married life sure is good!”

We would question if such a man is really married. Yes, a minister might have said something at a ceremony, but look at how he’s living. He’s not interacting with his bride. He doesn’t see her. He doesn’t spend time with her. Definitely then no sex with her. In what sense can he be considered married?

So does this mean that a man has to take his wife into a home with him and be intimate with her in order to be married? No. It’s being said that if a man doesn’t do those things, one can question if he really is married because married people do married things. In a parallel sense, if a man claims to be a Christian, but does nothing in service of Jesus, is he really a Christian? No. Saying you are a Christian entails that you will treat Jesus as your king.

Bates says about works that:

Classic Protestantism assumes that Paul objects to all works with regard to justification. But Paul’s concern is not with works in general (any and every deed) but more precisely with works of the law.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1612-1614). Kindle Edition.

Is this idea found in Scripture? Yes. Bates says:

Doing is required. In fact, for Paul, good works consistently form part of the basis for final salvation (e.g., Rom. 2: 6; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Gal. 6: 7– 10; 2 Tim. 4: 14; cf. Matt. 16: 27; John 5: 28– 29). It is “the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2: 13)

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1622-1624). Kindle Edition.

This is also how one bridges the gap between Paul and James that allegedly exists. James can say “You think Jesus is king? Good. Even the demons believe that, and they tremble.” (Yes. I know the text says that there is one God, but I think this would also apply.) In other words, the demons would believe that and take it seriously enough that they know it’s a threat. If you say you believe that Jesus is king and do nothing, you don’t even take it as seriously as a demon takes it.

So now we get to Bates’s critique then of Catholicism on this point. In Catholicism, there is set up a system of penance many times. There are things one is told to do such as the rosary or anything like that. Bates says that:

Paul is speaking about what it would mean to rebuild the “works of the law” (2: 16). To do so would be to turn back to the dysfunctional old order. It would be to turn away from the liberated new creation that is constituted by the king’s reign via the Spirit’s presence. Any person who reinstalls that stoicheia-based old system proves to be a violator of its regulations. Since the old-covenant system has reached its goal and end, forgiveness can no longer flow through it. Here’s the upshot: Anyone who attempts to reinstate the old covenant or any other written-rule system of salvation, whether in whole or in part, will violate God’s law, incurring the same guilt as someone who has violated every regulation within it.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1666-1673). Kindle Edition.

Keep in mind Bates is not saying that Catholics are not Christians, but the system set up is problematic. Of course, there are times it is proper to do something, but it is not to receive forgiveness, but because one has it. If I fault my brother and seek forgiveness, I need to go to him even after going to Jesus if it is at all possible to go to my brother. I need his forgiveness as well. I don’t go to him so Jesus will forgive me. I go to him because Jesus has forgiven me and that healing needs to be extended to my walk with my brother.

Next time, we’ll look at how Bates thinks we should read Galatians.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 3

Are we all family? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Galatians 3 speaks about how Abraham was given a promise. Abraham is normally Exhibit A. He’s the father of the faithful and he was declared righteous in the sight of God for believing the promise.

Bates contends we have misunderstood what the promise is. It is not justification by faith. That would make sense since according to Paul, Abraham was justified by his faith in his own lifetime. Why would the promise be that Abraham would have what he already had?

In Galatians 3: 8 the gospel that Scripture announced in advance to Abraham is not justification by faith but expressly all nations will be blessed in you. The gospel here pertains to the arrival of the Messiah as a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham regarding his singular seed (3: 16).

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1557-1559). Kindle Edition.

So what does this have to do with being in the same family?

We often talk about Jesus is the only way to God, but we really don’t talk a lot about what’s the way to Jesus. How does one come to be in the community of believers? If it is done in multiple ways, then there is not a common bond between us. You can be justified by faith or justified by the Law.

What Peter is doing in Galatians 2 then is creating a rift in the family by saying that if you were a Gentile, you had to live like a Jew. That was the way to show you were a part of the covenant people. Of course, pre-Christ, that would have been entirely correct. After Christ, you show you are a part of the covenant people by allegiance to Jesus.

Through the king’s loyalty to God and to God’s people the gospel creates one worldwide family out of the many nations. That is, the gospel does this when people give their allegiance to the king as a response to it. In Galatia, table-fellowship rules that reinstituted distinctively Jewish “works of the law” practices were splitting that one people into Jew and gentile factions, denying the truth of the gospel in its one-family purpose and result. In other words, justification by pistis is not the gospel (nor part of it) but rather is a key doctrine that safeguards the unity of the one true church. It shows that those who create false dividing walls, such as Jew and gentile, within the one true Jesus-is-king church are massively and dangerously in the wrong.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1568-1574). Kindle Edition.

Side topic on this from me personally, this is my problem with many people on the dispensational side of things. There is often seen as being that God has a plan for the Jews and then God has a plan for the Gentiles, but if Romans 11 is true, God has one covenant people only. Christians do not replace the Jewish tree. We are grafted into it.

Next time, we’ll see what Bates has to say about what he calls, the sad irony of justification.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Beyond the Salvation Wars Chapter 4 Part 2

How does Bates see faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Faith is one of the most misunderstood words in Christianity. A lot of atheists see it as belief without evidence, and unfortunately, a lot of Christians seem to agree with them. This hasn’t done the discussion any favors. I have written my own article on the meaning of faith here.

Bates meanwhile says:

I contend that Protestant-Catholic wrangling has been plagued by overly restrictive understandings of “faith.” How faith is used today or how related terms were used at the time of Protestant-Catholic split in the sixteenth century may or may not correspond to the Greek word pistis. What matters is the meaning of the ancient word pistis.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1442-1445). Kindle Edition.

This is something we should all consider. We could be taking a first-century concept debated in 16th century thought and applying it with 21st century understandings. No wonder we’re so confused! Writing that sentence was even confusing!

The problem Bates sees is not the content of the gospel was disagreed with. In Galatians, you do not see Paul arguing for the resurrection of Jesus. You do not see him arguing for the deity of Christ. What you see him arguing about is more on how people live in light of those realities.

Peter’s behavior wasn’t moving toward or in alignment with the truth of the gospel. This suggests not a compromise in the gospel’s content but a compromise of the gospel’s lived effect, actualized benefits, or practical results. Peter had not compromised the gospel’s raw content but its theological truthfulness as this pertained to its behavioral outworking. In Galatians 2: 14 Paul uses “the gospel” in a part-for-whole fashion to refer to behavior that results from the gospel’s truth that affects the wider community.

Matthew W. Bates. Beyond the Salvation Wars (Kindle Locations 1532-1537). Kindle Edition.

Let’s acknowledge also that to some extent, we all struggle with this. We all claim the kingship of Jesus, and many times we live as if He is not the king. We live like we are the ones that have to maintain control in our lives. I am not at all endorsing frivolous living, but I am saying we should trust that the king cares deeply for His subjects.

So what this means is that the Galatians were living as if allegiance to Jesus was insufficient for salvation. Not only do you have to swear allegiance to Jesus, you have to undergo circumcision and follow the Old Testament Law. Paul is writing to tell them that the Law was always insufficient for salvation in itself. It was always by grace through faith. If the Law was sufficient, there would be no need for Jesus. The only reason you need to keep the Law for salvation then is if you believe the sacrifice of Jesus and swearing allegiance to Him is insufficient for salvation.

While there could have been parallels to some events in the time of the Reformation, we should not read Galatians as if it was written to deal with a 16th-century question. It is a 1st-century text for a 1st-century question. Of course, it has relevance for us today, but we must see what the relevance was for them first and then apply it today.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)